>> [...]>>>> _We don't do what you're describing_>>>>>> Nevertheless,>>>> "Nevertheless"?>> Do you agree that what you're describing>> is not what we're doing?

*NETZWELTLER*DO YOU AGREE THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOINGIS NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING?

I think you do agree.This a pretty fundamental requirement:When you criticize what someone is doing,criticize _what they are doing_ and not something else.

>>> the process>>> 0 |-> write 0.9>>> 1 |-> append another 9 (to the 0.9 already written)>>> 2 |-> append another 9 (to the 0.99 already written)>>> ...>>> results in 0.999...>>>>>> Whereas the process you specified earlier>>> 0 |-> 0.9>>> 1 |-> 0.99>>> 2 |-> 0.999>>> ...>>> is nothing else but an infinite list of terminating decimals.>>>> Right. Nothing else but an infinite list of terminating decimals,>> which presents no problem, right?>>>> And we (meaning _we_ whether or not you include yourself)>> assign the value of the least upper bound of that list>> to the non-terminating decimal 0.999...>>>> I'm guessing you don't have a problem with the LUB either,>> because you talk about other things instead.>> _But this is what we do_> > We obviously agree that the process you specified earlier> 0 |-> 0.9> 1 |-> 0.99> 2 |-> 0.999> ...> is nothing else but an infinite list of terminating decimals.

It think it is also obvious that you have no problem withan infinite list of terminating decimals.

> What you don't want to see is, that the process> 0 |-> write 0.9> 1 |-> append another 9 (to the 0.9 already written)> 2 |-> append another 9 (to the 0.99 already written)> ...> results in 0.999...> > Maybe you cannot see that I am not writing a new number> in a new line at each step - as in your process. I am> appending the 9s in the same line. So I am not creating> an infinite list of terminating decimals. I am creating> a single non-terminating decimal. The append operations> are representing addition operations - infinitely many> addition operations.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that _everything_ thatyou have said about what *you* mean by 0.999... is true.Why does it matter, if it doesn't apply to what *we* meanby 0.999... ?

*You* give a meaning to 0.999... that involves infinitelymany addition operations, and then *you* find a problem withthe meaning that *you* gave 0.999... -- a meaning which is*NOT* the meaning *we* give to 0.999... So what?

I mean, fine. Whatever. Let me grant, for the sake of argument,_every error_ that you point out about what *you* mean isin fact an error. Whoopsie! We'll just have to fix that rightnow: We "now" evaluate infinite decimals in a way that avoidsinfinite multiplications, whatever they may be. End of problem.Of course, we already didn't do what your argument suggestswe shouldn't do before you made your argument, but never mind._There is no problem_